 |
Gov. Gen. David Johnston greets Silver Cross Mother Mabel Girouard, mother of Chief Warrant Officer Robert Girouard, who was killed by a suicide bomb in Afghanistan in 2006. (Pawel Dwulit/Canadian Press) |
We are so fortunate. I ask why in this chartered land of freedoms are the freedoms of some withheld? When you commit a violation of law, you justly forfeit certain freedoms. In the defense of people's freedoms, such as children's rights to health and safety, governments must at times confiscate the freedom of those who are under suspicion. That is as it should be and it is understood. But governments or ministries within governments contravene their mandates when suspicion is equated with evidence, when the suspicion is not investigated expeditiously, when rights are withheld indefinitely, and when legal authority is abused at the expense of Canada's citizens.
This is what is observed within the child protection corridors of BC's Ministry of Children and hundreds of B.C.'s law abiding and decent citizens will bear witness to this. While social workers within MCFD at every level may see things differently than me and may even feel an obligation to defend all MCFD action, there must be some SWs who concur that there are frequent trespasses of protocol and propriety. It is important that some of you speak up. The necessary improvements to interactions with family and delivery of services cannot happen without such admissions and admonitions from within.
Continuing with Blanco
ReplyDeleteProgress was slow and steady. At school the testing showed that both girls were above average in abilities and before the six month supervision period was over, they had both progressed under the kindly guidance of the sisters to the point of being well up in their class standings.
At home the bedwetting problems had ceased. I was prepared to put in a wet alarm for Bridget, but Mrs. Blanco felt that she would like to keep on with late night potting for a while longer, which worked fairly quickly. The girls were steadily becoming more predictable in their behaviour and showed less resentment at routines. I attributed this to the parents diligent work at positive reinforcement, which actually seemed to come to them much more naturally than using punishment, because Mrs. Blanco in particular was a very affectionate person.
When the six months supervision period had expired, Mr. and Mrs. Blanco asked if they could stay in voluntary counselling for a few more months because they felt that they could still use some guidance. I could well understand Mrs. Blanco's position in particular. She had never had any children of her own and she had made a huge undertaking, which was quite intimidating. Although she was doing well, she still needed to have some reassurance and support and she felt comfortable enough with me to be able to share her mistakes as well as her successes. For my part, I found the case rewarding enough to work with, that I needed no persuasion to extend counselling for another three months.
The next three months were uneventful. Once the climate for growth had been well established, the girls seemed to develop rapidly. They both continued the good progress at school and were achieving to the best level of their abilities. Most of the behaviour that had concerned their parents were no longer in evidence. Also no doubt, the parents had developed more realistic ideas about what one might expect from children. By the time that I closed the case, both parents seemed to be confident that they had a rewarding family life and that they would be able to manage things quite well on their own.
Continued
Blanco continue. I follow with a case analysis, because the book is a teaching device.
ReplyDeleteCase analysis
It is not difficult to identify the important components of this case. Matters would have gone much more smoothly, had some basic principles been identified and followed early on in the case. For quite some time before the admission to care of the children, it had become evident that their safety would soon demand such an action. In such a situation, a good case history would quickly show that there was another parent with rights in the situation and one who was required by law to be served with notice of the proceedings. In cases where there is separation or divorce, with custody as part of a court order, the non-custodial parent has both the responsibility and the right to offer protection to the children. As soon as either parent is shown to be able and willing to provide proper care, the need for state protection no longer exists. The state's responsibility is to give the competent parent all reasonable assistance in providing that care. In this case the only immediate barrier was the need to reverse the divorce custody order.
No doubt the children were at risk at the actual time that they were apprehended, but there had been ample time to have forestalled the event had the father been involved much earlier. Why was it not done? The mother had said things that made the worker believe that the father would not be a fit parent. Hearsay is unreliable evidence, but the worker had believed everything without trying to get the facts verified from a more objective source.
To start with, she should have considered that the fact that the father had tried to meet with her, which seemed to be the action of a concerned parent. She could have got a different viewpoint, simply by interviewing the father. For instance, the factual matter of his having provided support to the children could have been verified immediately. A standard procedure would also have been to ask for a home study to be done on the father by his local child welfare office. Such a study would have to explore his married relationship and the feelings of the second wife about providing a home for the girls. The basic principle then was to gather evidence, consisting of the sort of factual material which could be verified with reasonable objectivity.
The next principle is to have a fair and open process. The way British Columbian law and policy supports the process is by requiring copies of the court report to be given to both parents, or to anyone who has filled a significant parental role in a child's life. This process was not followed. No doubt the worker in this situation would have written the court report more objectively, had she realized that a copy would have to go to all parties. These are matters that should be considered before one writes the reports and not after they have already been submitted. I would be loathe to criticised the social worker, because she may well have lacked good basic training and she certainly seemed to be unaware of some fundamental requirements.
Blanco conclusion. I will make the next one much shorter, next week.
ReplyDeleteThe adversarial process which was started in this case, could do nothing but make matters worse and simply created more difficulties and expense for the father in trying to plan for his children. Even if the mother's information had been proved right and the father was not a fit parent, the facts could have been arrived at through a fair and equitable process. The balance of probabilities was that the father would have made his case in court eventually and that he would have succeeded in getting custody of his daughters, but there is no guarantee that this would happen. Either he or his wife could have become dispirited by the struggle, or they could have run out of money for legal fees. No judgement is completely predictable and the judge may have been unsympathetic and inclined to give more weight to other testimony.
Note also how important my role as an advocate became in this case and how difficult it would have been for the family to negotiate the social systems without this help. Especially in negotiating those systems which were supposed to help and protect the rights of the family members.
To recapitulate, the three principles were. 1. The right of the other parent to provide protection. 2. Objective gathering of evidence. 3. The need for a fair and open process.
Note. I would not criticize the worker for notifying the parents for a hearing on a permanent order. One can always notify for permanence and agree to any lesser order in court, but it is sometimes very difficult to notify for a temporary order and then ask for a permanent one, when compelling evidence arises during the hearing. However, it is the technique that I do not criticize, although in this case it was based on avoidably mistaken beliefs.
Finally, a word about the casework after the children were placed with their father. There is a strong probability that the progress that was shown would have eventually taken place anyway, because there were ample strengths shown by the parents and by the caregivers at school. I do believe though that the progress was made more quickly, happily and confidently because of the counselling that they received. My most important contribution was in advocating their cause prior to the placement, which also laid the foundation for the parents to have confidence in me as a counsellor. The counselling deepened their understanding of why the girls behaved as they did and how they could be helped to achieve growth. The strengths of the parents were revealed to them and how they could be used to achieve their goals a family.
People died for their country, or rather for the ideals of freedom and justice. But when you see what is happening now with children being torn from their families and all they know and love, and placed into numerous foster houses, where too often they are abused, and too often they suffer horribly, you have to wonder what it all means. As long as there is something like MCFD, or CAS, there is no freedom, and there definately is no justice.
ReplyDeleteAs soon as you open the door to state intervention, you have to expect these horrible injustices will occur.
What is worse, having no MCFD and supposedly risking some child abuse (which occurs anyhow, and arguably even occurs moreso because of MCFD and their unjust treatment of children), or abolishing MCFD, and all the individual instances of injustice, such as occured / occurs in the Baynes' case, as well as the general destruction of democracy.
I think that the only ones who really know are the ones who are innocent and are considered guilty. I did a lot of good things, yet I have a terrible report on me. I am supposed to meet with a psychologist next. I am liable to fight it.
ReplyDeleteFormer social workers have made public a bit of what is going on in Pivot reports like Hands Tied, but whistle-blower type reports might be a career-ending move.
ReplyDeleteI would rather have anonymous reporters that deliver good information on a continuous basis.
Here is a comment by a 15-year social worker who posted on the child left alone with her dead mother for 9 days.
ReplyDeleteThe comment is very interesting that I had not thought about, stating the organization is female-centric and biased towards women, against men. The implication is children are being left at risk so the female parent can continued to receive government subsidies through possession of the child.
I personally have not encountered this through the varioud parents I have talked to.
------
I worked the child social work services for 15 years,
I'll tell you exactly why this happenned.
Modern Child Protection Agencies are internally very feminist organizations. All of their staff, and directorships come from Social Work faculties of Universities. Those Social Work faculties are very closely tied to Women's Studies Programs. They are "sister" faculties.
Regardless what the Mission Statrment, the Directors, and the politicians say ........ the REAL client of the system is the adult WOMAN in the case file not the child. The child seen in that agency world view as literally an appendage of the woman.
When the woman, no matter how damaged goods she is ..... depends on income brought in by the child's presence (child support, disability payments, child tax credit etc.) the Child Protection Worker will most often side with the woman.
They'll brush away complaints as "unfounded", try to find a male to pin them on, or use them to get the mom more "support services".
Empowering the parent woman in the case is JOB ONE. Right up until the point where the case threatens to go public.
Then, the agenciy circles the wagons, and reads their mission statement to the press over and over ......... "the child is always our first concern"
Which is pure prairie fertilizer.
Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/story/2010/11/12/bc-girl-corpse-turpel-lafond.html#socialcomments#ixzz15BCizBL6
------
MCFD wants to divide and conquer (men and women). A lot of the women who work for these agencies do seem to have a problem with men, but they also have a problem with heterosexual relationships, and a problem with certain types of other women (e.g., ones that their politics find objectionable). So, no, it is not true that they are biased towards women, they are just as likely to take a child of a single mother's, perhaps even moreso.
ReplyDeleteThe only thing that does seem to be a constant is that they will ignore a child who is really in danger, and set their sights on one who is in a good loving family. Their real goal seems to be to destroy heterosexual families. And that's one reason why they are so supportive of gay adoption.
They also despise religion, many if not most are atheists. Which makes perfect sense - after all, who could believe in God and do what they do. You really have to have no conscience to rip apart a good family.
Well, Anon 5:08 PM
ReplyDeleteYou say some things that are pretty categorical but their substance is questionable. It may be the way you feel but it is illogical to say that MCFD's goal is to destroy heterosexual families. And to say that most are atheists doesn't accomplish much either because in the general population, name any profession and the same percentage of believers and non believers may be found. If there is substance to your argument that child protection agencies in which the majority of staffers are women with a bias against women and therefore pro gay unions, then I would certainly like to see survey or study evidence to support it. Otherwise, this approach doesn't wash with me and I would never use it.
There won't be any survey, per se, that will show this. But there are thousands and thousands of forms of media and court judgments which will show that this is the direction we are headed in.
ReplyDeleteHere below, for example, is an article which reveals quite nicely the politics behind child protection and adoption as it currently stands:
"Two young children are to be adopted by a gay couple, despite the protests of their grandparents.
The devastated grandparents were told they would never see the youngsters again unless they dropped their opposition.
The couple, who cannot be named, wanted to give the five-year-old boy and his four-year-old sister a loving home themselves. But they were ruled to be too old – at 46 and 59.
For two years they fought for their rights to care for the children, whose 26-year- old mother is a recovering heroin addict.
They agreed to an adoption only after they faced being financially crippled by legal bills.
The final blow came when they were told the children were going to a gay household, even though several heterosexual couples wanted them.
When the grandfather protested, he was told: ‘You can either accept it, and there’s a chance you’ll see the children twice a year, or you can take that stance and never see them again.’
The man said last night: ‘It breaks my heart to think that our grandchildren are being forced to grow up in an environment without a mother figure. We are not prejudiced, but I defy anyone to explain to us how this can be in their best interests.’
Social workers themselves have admitted that the little girl is ‘more wary’ of men than women.
The case, in Edinburgh, raises worrying issues about state interference in family life.
It will also fuel concern over the practice of gay adoption, which has been promoted by Left-wing ministers and council bosses..."
http://www.anglican-mainstream.net/2009/01/28/they-say-were-too-old-to-care-for-our-grandchildren-social-workers-hand-brother-and-sister-to-gay-men-for-adoption/
"There were several heterosexual couples on the council’s books willing to offer a loving home – leading to suggestions that the council was operating a politically-correct quota system."
ReplyDeletehttp://thejournalistachronicle.wordpress.com/2009/02/01/tycoon-backs-grandparents-fighting-gay-adoption-bid/
I can certainly agree with the divide and conquer strategy employed by MCFD.
ReplyDeleteThese well trained social workers will use their social engineering skills and pit children against one another, children against parents, parents against each other, and against any extended family members, they will breed suspicion between neighbors and daycare workers and employers. Even service providers, such as parent coaches, psychologists, doctors are not immune from MCFD's influence.
This reminds me of the Stephen King movie, "Needful Things."
Fortunately, this reprehensible tactic has not worked with the Baynes.
I think that it depends from office to office if they are feminist entities or not. My office certainly isn't. They took my kids and did not care that I was a single mom. They do not care how hard you are working or how little money you have, more reasons to take the kids from their p.o.v. It helped me immensely that my kids father has since become so involved and we get along well. However, if it had been written in a different light, they may have tried to eliminate him. That happens too.
ReplyDelete